Parliament not to blame for delay in electoral reforms

The Parliament of Uganda has noted with concern and taken exception to yesterday’s (Sunday) editorial in the Sunday Monitor titled “Stop dilly-dallying and pass electoral reforms.”

In the editorial, the writer calls upon the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, and other stakeholders to expedite the electoral reforms, claiming that they are ‘stuck’ in Parliament, yet they should have been passed at least two years to the general election.

It is worth noting that reforms are contained in the five Bills tabled by the Attorney General on July 25, 2019. These are the Presidential Elections Amendment Bills 2019, Parliament Elections Amendment Bill, 2019, Electoral Commission Amendment Bill, 2019, Political Parities and Organisations Amendment Bill, 2019 and the Local Government Amendment Bill, 2019.

Additionally, on December 19, 2019, Parliament received the Opposition-backed Constitutional (Amendments) for the first reading. The Bill was consequently forwarded to the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee for scrutiny.

Parliament would like to clarify that much as the article seems to attribute the delay on the handling of the Bills to the internal processes within the institution, this is erroneous and misrepresents the position of the House regarding this matter.

It should be noted, that the responsibility to table the electoral reform Bills lies with the Executive, which in particular is the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs. On tabling the Bills, they were referred to the appropriate committee of Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, which was tasked to go and consult at the sub-regional level.

The committee members traversed 14 sub-regions and had very informative interactions with the public on the amendments.

Much as they sought an extension of 25 days, the committee concluded its work after having been granted an additional 20 days on November 5, 2019.

The Speaker, in her communication on Thursday September 19, 2019, in which she committed to an extension of 40 days explained that the reforms were to be considered during the third meeting, which is the budget session.

This, though unusual, was all done to prioritise the electoral reforms because of their importance. Indeed, by Tuesday January 21, 2020, the laws were ready to be tabled and were on the Order Paper.

The committee reports have been ready for tabling in the House but this can only be done after the motion for the second reading can be moved by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs.

However, contrary to the expectation, communication from the Attorney General (Vide. reference ADM 203/01), to the Speaker of Parliament dated January 22, 2020, indicated that the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs was not in position to table the bills for the Second Reading because he was expected to assume office on the same day (January 22, 2020).
The Attorney General then requested that the Bills’ reading be deferred to the week starting February 3, 2020, and this is the status quo.

Subsequently, the item was removed from the Order paper pending further communication from the Attorney General, under whose jurisdiction this responsibility falls.
Once again, it should be noted that the delays of tabling electoral reforms are not the responsibility of Parliament. Right from the start as early as January 2018, Parliament and Members of Parliament have been advocating for timely tabling of the bills from Government to no avail.

It has been excuse after excuse from the ministers concerned, without whose input and action, Parliament’s hands are tied.

It should also be noted that much as Parliament is very busy with the Budget process during the Third session, the Speaker has given priority to passing of the Electoral reform bills, and will not be seen to setback the electoral process.

It is always important for the media to conduct proper research and fully appreciate how the process of passing Bills in Parliament works, and to internalise the interplay between the legislature and Executive in passing the Bills.

It is also important to note that Parliament is always available to provide information. It would have been much fairer and ethical, if clarification on the proper status of affairs had been sought before the editorial was written.

By Ms Jane Kibirige,

Clerk to Parliament